The most crucial detail -- what is in this settlement -- is missing, as Apple successfully negotiated a court order to seal the settlement. Given that Apple faced up to $840M USD in potential damages claims (by prosecutors' estimations), the settlement is probably less than $100M USD.

Apple has a month to submit a filing asking for approval of its settlement offer. That filing may provide some insight into exactly what it's willing to pay back to consumers in damages.

The popular gadget maker's legal woes stem from the 2010 release of the iPad. To drive the device's sales Apple made a major foray into the eBook market, brokering key contracts with publishers.

The case was somewhat unusual because Apple at the time did not have a dominant position in the eBooks market. However, a lengthy federal probe by the U.S. Department of Justice revealed a long paper trail of corporate communications, including emails from Steve Jobs and his executives. These emails painted what seemed to be a clear picture that Apple colluded with the publishers to fix prices to try to break the power of Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN). Price fixing is illegal even for minority players in a given market, according to U.S. antitrust laws.

Apple quickly rejected that settlement offer, taking particular issue with the idea of an external monitor to watch its behavior for signs of wrongdoing. It argued a monitor would be a competitive threat and it should be allowed to self-report on its progress in avoiding anticompetitive/collusive behavior. Apple was granted a hearing before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York to plead its case, but the Circuit Appeals court was unconvinced and order that the lower court's ruling stand.

The finding of guilt allowed state attorney generals and consumers to band together under a second suit in the class action lawsuit against Apple seeking monetary damages. Judge Cote was scheduled to hear both sides and issue a ruling on whether Apple owed the states and consumers damages.

The ebook ruling has helped to reinforce Amazon's dominant position in the market.

Apple was last heard vowing to file a formal appeal Judge Cote's original finding of guilt (a more aggressive move than its previous tactic of calling for a hearing to try to dismiss the external monitor). It is probable that Apple may have agreed to forgo its appeal as part of the settlement. It is unknown how the current settlement impacts Apple's ongoing legal complaints about the external monitor.

Ultimately the case appears to result in cheaper rates for consumers, but the dark side is that it has served to reinforce Amazon's dominant position in the market. Amazon has recently begun to show signs of abusive behavior, delaying shipments of paper books and the release of highly anticipated new titles (both in digital and non-digital form), in an effort to squeeze a bigger cut of digital + non-digital book revenue from publishers.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. (BKS) one of Amazon's major rivals was unhappy that DOJ prosecutors had no issue with the market's most dominant player sell eBooks below cost. It has argued that such a tactic should be illegal.